From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13754 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2008 22:17:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 13746 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2008 22:17:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:16:55 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70E62AA28B for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:16:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id z1bRkrdxmz6j for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:16:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 829302AA242 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:16:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4D635E7ACB; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:16:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:17:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] "continue" after "attach" fails on sparc64-solaris Message-ID: <20080307221651.GE3892@adacore.com> References: <20080201181237.GA20356@adacore.com> <20080307184121.GB3892@adacore.com> <20080307191140.GA368@caradoc.them.org> <20080307193940.GC3892@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080307193940.GC3892@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 > > This was what threw me off an immediate reply. I doubt the kernel's > > got a bug like this, since Solaris tools use the auxv data. So we > > must have an error when reading it. Maybe the format is different > > than we expect (32-bit vs 64-bit fields)? > > It's been a while, but I remember inspecting the memory contents > of what was supposed to be the AUXV region, and couldn't make any > sense out of it at the time, even after trying to change sizes > to 32bit or 64bit. If I get a chance, I'll look at it again. Some additional data: I wasn't seeing this problem on neither our Solaris 2.8 nor our 2.10 machine... Perhaps we're missing a patch on our 2.9 machine. Not sure - I'll see if I can ask our sysadmin to contact Sun about it. -- Joel